Literature DB >> 31948503

The political construction of public health nutrition problems: a framing analysis of parliamentary debates on junk-food marketing to children in Australia.

Cherie Russell1, Mark Lawrence1,2, Katherine Cullerton3, Phillip Baker1,2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Junk-food marketing contributes significantly to childhood obesity, which in turn imposes major health and economic burdens. Despite this, political priority for addressing junk-food marketing has been weak in many countries. Competing interests, worldviews and beliefs of stakeholders involved with the issue contribute to this political inertia. An integral group of actors for driving policy change are parliamentarians, who champion policy and enact legislation. However, how parliamentarians interpret and portray (i.e. frame) the causes and solutions of public health nutrition problems is poorly understood. The present study aimed to understand how Australian parliamentarians from different political parties frame the problem of junk-food marketing.
DESIGN: Framing analysis of transcripts from the Australian Government's Parliamentary Hansard, involving development of a theoretical framework, data collection, coding transcripts and thematic synthesis of results. SETTINGS: Australia. PARTICIPANTS: None.
RESULTS: Parliamentarian framing generally reflected political party ideology. Liberal parliamentarians called for minimal government regulation and greater personal responsibility, reflecting the party's core values of liberalism and neoliberalism. Greens parliamentarians framed the issue as systemic, highlighting the need for government intervention and reflecting the core party value of social justice. Labor parliamentarians used both frames at varying times.
CONCLUSIONS: Parliamentarians' framing was generally consistent with their party ideology, though subject to changes over time. This project provides insights into the role of framing and ideology in shaping public health policy responses and may inform communication strategies for nutrition advocates. Advocates might consider using frames that resonate with the ideologies of different political parties and adapting these over time.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Childhood obesity; Framing; Ideology; Junk food; Marketing; Political priority

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31948503     DOI: 10.1017/S1368980019003628

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Public Health Nutr        ISSN: 1368-9800            Impact factor:   4.022


  6 in total

1.  Children's, parents' and professional stakeholders' views on power concerning the regulation of online advertising of unhealthy food to young people in the UK: A qualitative study.

Authors:  Lauren Carters-White; Shona Hilton; Kathryn Skivington; Stephanie Chambers
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-06-13       Impact factor: 3.752

Review 2.  Measuring public opinion and acceptability of prevention policies: an integrative review and narrative synthesis of methods.

Authors:  Eloise Howse; Katherine Cullerton; Anne Grunseit; Erika Bohn-Goldbaum; Adrian Bauman; Becky Freeman
Journal:  Health Res Policy Syst       Date:  2022-03-04

3.  Intergovernmental policy opportunities for childhood obesity prevention in Australia: Perspectives from senior officials.

Authors:  Emma K Esdaile; Chris Rissel; Louise A Baur; Li Ming Wen; James Gillespie
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-04-28       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Newspaper framing of food and beverage corporations' sponsorship of sport: a content analysis.

Authors:  L E Carters-White; C Patterson; A Nimegeer; S Hilton; S Chambers
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2022-09-16       Impact factor: 4.135

5.  Qualitative perspectives of the North Carolina healthy food small retailer program among customers in participating stores located in food deserts.

Authors:  Lindsey Haynes-Maslow; Stephanie B Jilcott Pitts; Kathryn A Boys; Jared T McGuirt; Sheila Fleischhacker; Alice S Ammerman; Nevin Johnson; Casey Kelley; Victoria E Donadio; Ronny A Bell; Melissa N Laska
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2021-07-27       Impact factor: 3.295

6.  Whose rights deserve protection? Framing analysis of responses to the 2016 Committee of Advertising Practice consultation on the non-broadcast advertising of foods and soft drinks to children.

Authors:  Lauren Carters-White; Stephanie Chambers; Kathryn Skivington; Shona Hilton
Journal:  Food Policy       Date:  2021-10       Impact factor: 6.080

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.